GRGR(5): note on Katje

[Meg Larson]

> Charles:
> >But we get a pretty good rationalization for Frenesi in the
> >description of her family history. There is a pretty explicit
> >suggestion that Frenesi has seen the petty side of "the Great
> >struggle" (her father flipping the bird at movie credits cuz some
> >name owed him money), and that she finds little to choose between the
> >sides.

Me:
Perhaps; I'd hesitate to call it a 'rationalization' b/c I think it's just a
reason, which, in my mind, is different from excuse/alibi/rationalization.
The latter terms have a degree of apology/justification, whereas the
former--a reason--seems to be apologetic-free; it doesn't ask you to
choose--it just is.  In other words, an alibi/excuse is complete--"I was
late b/c the Crystal Palace fell and blocked the road"; no other factors are
involved.  A reason is just one of many factors that influence behavior.
That Frenesi rationalizes behaviors--not just her own, but she rationalizes
those of virtually everyone she comes in contact with--is, on this level,
much the same as that of Katje.  Katje serves functions for almost everyone
she comes into contact with, and not only do we get her story, but we get
the stories of those who, for whatever reasons/purposes, she touches.  That
passage on p. where Katje leaves, with Gottfried, not only do we know what
it was like for Katje to leave, but we also get to see what happens to those
she leaves behind, and those she goes to find (Slothrop).   No one, in my
nind, does this as well as Pynchon.

Katje, herself, who acted as an agent of the negotiation for the Jews, also
becomes negotiable (insert your own adage, a la Reapin' what's Sowed, blah
blah).  No one captures the intensity of one's moral fluctuations with more
immediacy than Pynchon--a case can be mad for either side, I think.

Scott, I think:
> Agreed, but why take every side?  Why not stick to the sidelines - woulda'
> been just as painful as the Brock thing to the 'rents etc.  True the
> sidelines aren't  what they used to be, but still alot safer than
straddling
> the interface of systems whose sole intent is destruction of the other.

Me:
But staying on the sidelines is a passive role (and still a choice);
whatever choice one makes, whatever side one chooses or chooses neither
side, it's still an active choice; I think the difference is about the
consequences of each decision, and I need to think about this a little more.

A position that strips her of everything and leaves her with nothing -- if
she
> survives...We can look to her past and see, as Frenesi did, the Fatal
Flaw.
> The wyrm along the back-bone of every idealogy.  But instead of rejecting,
> she embraces them all.  Why subject herself to this most drawn out,
painful
> and humilitating destruction?  Does she believe that her destruction will
> include the systems as well?

Me:
But is there not a fatal flaw of sorts attached to sitting on the sidelines?
And we see it as "drawn out, painful and humiliating" but I'm not sure that
this is how Katje sees it.  More to come on this . . .

> It's this that I see a reflection of in Katje.  A difference though; I
don't
> think Katje has the same destructive intent as Frenest.  I think she is
> easily taken with an argument for the greater good - a mathematician,
> remember - but when faced with a conflict at the individual level, she'll
> break the rules of the greater good.  So with Blicero, so with Slothrop.
> But like Frenesi, the postion that would be safest and easiest for Katje,
> the sidelines, is the one place she never goes.
>
Me:
Slothrop ultimately takes the position, and what happens to him?



>